Jump to content

Philosophy of Philosopy of Photography Forums


Recommended Posts

<p>After having posted responses in several Philosophy of Photography forums, I have noticed a rather uncomfortable pattern that raises its ugly head too often. Comments are made that do not address the issue at hand, <em><strong>per se</strong></em>. Rather, they involve quasi-personal, sometimes fully personal, attacks. Most recently, in a thread pertaining to extrinsic and intrinsic qualities of photographs, one participant made a comment about Jean-Paul Sartre's alleged narcissism. </p>

<p>Logicians traditionally have referred to the use of such strategies in the context of argument as <strong><em>argumentum ad hominem</em></strong> - argument against the man. Example: "Barack Obama's middle name is 'Hussein'. He has ties to Islam. Therefore, his proposed middle east policies should not be taken seriously." Clearly, it does take a great deal of logical acumen to see through this argument. The conclusion does not, by any means, follow from its premises. The premises are totally irrelevant.</p>

<p>If a person's points of view were evaluated based on his/her behavioral idiosyncracies or even lapses in morality, it is unlikely we ever would witness any intellectual progress. My best example has to do with attending a colloquim given by Saul Kripke at the invitation of the University of Miami philosopy department (about 35 years ago). Professor Kripke walked to the podium with his shirt half out of his pants. He must have had a cold, and he wiped his nose on his shirt sleeve. When he spoke, he made no eye contact with the attendees, and his delivery was halting and, occasionally, barely audible. The bottom line is that his appearance and behavior were odd, and his delivery was awful. However, none of that had any relevance to the arguments he offered. And, IMHO, Professor Kripke is responsible for incredibly significant developments in symbolic logic, philosopy of language, and philosopy of mind.</p>

<p>I suspect that the forum discussions would be far more valuable to all concerned if the comments posted would stay on task.</p>

<p>Thanks for hearing me out.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>one participant made a comment about Jean-Paul Sartre's alleged narcissism<br /></em><br />The horror! I may not be able to get anything else done today, having heard of that inexcusable atrocity.<br /><br /><em>If a person's points of view were evaluated based on his/her behavioral idiosyncracies or even lapses in morality, it is unlikely we ever would witness any intellectual progress.<br /></em><br />You cannot separate world view and morality from achievement. At some point, world view and the personal ethics/values that one derives from it can and do eclipse skill, IQ, or even a lifelong body of work, no matter how constructive. One's morality/ethics are a function of one's understanding of reality, of consequence, and of purpose.<br /><br />Much intellectual achievement is considered meaningless - or worse, as actually evil - by people with certain views of the world. Most people in the west would consider it an abbrasive idiosyncrasy to yell angrily at girls as they pass, and a true moral failing for someone to be so incensed at the prospect of a girl learning to read and write that he would throw acid in her face as she walks to her school. And yet, there are large movements of people who have that "point of view" (see this week's news out of Pakistan's wild frontier).<br /><br />Point of view <em>matters</em>. Moral relativism is poison, but when it only manifests itself as some blithe slack-cutting for a person showing a touch of disrespect through the manner in which he dresses/speaks (your example, above), it's pretty benign. But you can't say that point of view doesn't matter at all unless you're willing to cut equal slack to acid-tossers and teacher-murderers. After all, that's just another point of view, right? Or is it possible that one <em>does</em> benefit from understanding how (and why) someone lives when digesting what they say? <em>A</em> is <em>A</em> regardless of who says it. But subtle cultural and historical critiques are best consumed in some sort of context. Otherwise every discussion would require a lengthy introduction, every time, of all of the participants and their histories.<br /><br /><em>I suspect that the forum discussions would be far more valuable to all concerned if the comments posted would stay on task.<br /></em><br />I suspect that the forums would be a dry, uninteresting place indeed if there were no color or sidebar tidbits drifting in from this incredibly diverse audience. Since you brought up extrinsics: you might as well get comfortable with fact that a public forum like this is rich with externalities that cannot and should not always be controlled and filtered. It's not very hard to ignore (or simply not take <em>personally</em>, you know) a cruel, cruel comment about a dead philosopher's narcissism. Further, a little biographical context <em>can</em> in fact make a comment or citation far more insightful.<br /><br />And in keeping with all of that, I hereby link to a <strong><a href="
ad hominem externality</a></strong>.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Michael--</p>

<p>I share your frustration. And thanks for posting this.</p>

<p>I just got through addressing the same issue in the forum you're referring to, which was cut off at the knees by the behavior you're talking about.</p>

<p>I can humbly say this is probably the first time I think Matt's way off the mark. It was a good run, though! :) Matt, this is not color. It's nonsense.</p>

<p>I would have made the point differently from Michael. I'm not sure the ad hominem attacks against Sartre bother me as much as the consistent ad hominem attacks against other PN member-contributors to the forums, the consistent way in which threads are completely sidetracked by one person into tete-a-tetes strictly about personality and often derailing the conversation.</p>

<p>Matt, if you read through these Philosophy threads carefully, you'll note a distinct pattern of how and when they devolve and when most participants seem to drop out or when the anger takes over the productivity. </p>

<p>It's a shame.</p>

<p>And it's unfair to the rest of us.</p>

<p>And I congratulate Michael for approaching it directly.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with Michael, and also with Fred's observation on <em>AH</em> attacks against other members.<br>

Seeing a "Philosophy of photography" forum was one of the main factors deciding me to join PN; the problem Michael mentions one of the main factors in my very rarely taking part thereafter.<br>

I confess I don't, in practice, really know how the problem might be prevented, without risking a swing the other way to censorship. But I do agree.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I confess! I confess to NOT having that patience to go back and read the thread in question, and was more interested in responding to Michael's broader assertions and posture in this very thread, right here. Solidly "on topic" posts are sometimes only thus in the mind of the person who starts them, or wishes to control them. One man's off-topic comment is another man's helpful and horizon-broadening extrinsics. :-)<br /><br />I'm sure you've seen me play the pedantic scold more than once, Fred, so of course I understand the urge - and the need - to operate within some boundaries if a thread is to have at least some useful purpose. And nonsense is, of course, nonsense.<br /><br />No, I was more struck by Michael's other points. And I suppose that to the extent that his remarks were about the particular offending thread, they'd have been more on topic (ahem!) on the bottom of <em>that</em> thread. Since this seemed a broader topic - and included some platitudinous bits of baggage - I thought I'd speak directly to Michael's sentiments and, er... point of view, as put forth in its solo form, in this thread.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If there are attacks on other photo.net members, then they should be reported to me or Mike Dixon. Since there haven't been more than a couple reports over the last year (there were problems before then), I have to assume that these aren't serious. It's important to distinguish between attacks on a person and attacks on a person's ideas. A lot of people get confused about this.</p>

<p>I'm not particularly concerned about an attack on Sartre, and I seriously doubt Sartre is either. Comments on public figures, including dead public figures, are different than personal attacks on a forum. I don't see the comment referenced as a problem. </p>

<p>This forum has been surprisingly calm over the last year, most of the moderation has been moving out threads, at least once a day, that have no reason to be in this forum. Both Mike and I skim and/or read the posts here, and unless someone shows us that there is a problem, it is hard to take the complaints seriously. Give some examples and they can be cleaned up. Complain in a vacuum and there is nothing to do.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's interesting that non-supporters and near-never-participants position themselves as defenders of this little corner of P.N without being willing to step up to the plate.</p>

<p>Fred G's recurring notion that it's "unfair" (see above) and "off rails" to propose ideas that are new to him is disappointing.</p>

<p>Obscure academics who are "authorized" and "on rails" seem rarely to be exponents of "philosophy of photography." Who knows...perhaps if their work was described by someone who meant to communicate it would become significant to more than a few.</p>

<p>To accept that one popular writer (eg Sartre) is a "philosopher" and an equally significant philosopher (Freud) is "off rails" and a "personalized" reference, solely on the basis of religious roots ( per Fred G's recent pronouncement), is disturbing.</p>

<p>For that matter, since when were psychologists (or the rest of us) less "philosophic" than academic philosophers, critics, or pop-photographers of celebrities?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff--</p>

<p>I suggest you read the "Extrinsic/Intrinsic" thread and come to your own conclusions about relevance of posts and personality overtaking principle. As Felix put it, there is no desire for moderator interference or censorship because that causes big problems of its own. The best we can achieve is self-regulation, not only expecting the offending parties to modify their behavior, but keeping in mind that the rest of us can always ignore the problem in hopes it will go away.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff:</p>

<p>I truly appreciate the comments you made, and I am confident that PN administrators are doing their job well. However, I take responsibility for my own behavior, and I will deal with a problem head-on. This brings me to . . .</p>

<p>Matt:</p>

<p>"Since this seemed a broader topic - and included some platitudinous bits of baggage - I thought I'd speak directly to Michael's sentiments and, er... point of view, as put forth in its solo form, in this thread." This is exactly a case in point. </p>

<p>Mr. Sartre: I was not defending his philosopy nor advancing an argument based on that philosophy. If I were, I would be really disappointed by a rebuttal based on Sartre's "narcissism." I've personally known a few philosophers, some of them obscure, some of them more well-known. Indeed, some of them were a*%ho#*s. So what? I'm an a*%ho*#. So what? </p>

<p>Having spent a great deal of my life studying philosopy, I think I can say without any arrogance that I am aware of the importance of the sociological, psychological, historical, personal, etc., circumstances in which a philosopher lived. It is at best difficult to understand the wider significance of anything (a painting, a film, a photograph, a person's statement) without being familiar with these sorts of circumstances. However, it is a fundamental logical mistake to rely on them to support an argument. </p>

<p>Finally, I am not trying to control anything. I have no power to control your behavior, nor do I wish to do so. I have enough trouble with myself, thank you! The purpose of posting this thread was to try to make a contribution to the quality of PN forums. I don't mind getting into a scuffle as long as it's a fair one. And I am grateful for the interesting variety of comments that people make on these forums.</p>

<p>Oh well . . ., I guess I may have been off the mark, so I will say no more on this point. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Michael, my reference to Sartre's narcissism was nearly entirely unrelated to his behavior (he sought attention but I don't think he preened). Rather, I was referring to the center of his philosophy: his so-precious identity.</p>

<p>As a fan of Leslie Fiedler (you may enjoy obscure references), I try to read what the writer had to damn well say, before wallowing in his life story (per much lit crit these days).</p>

<p>However (heh), it's not reasonable (it's nuts) to accept that people who post here are more importantly what they say than what they share in P.N galleries.</p>

<p>You've just asked us to credit you for "a great deal of..life studying philosophy." Yet your photography (on P.N) appears to tell an entirely other story. Are we to ignore our responses to that kind of ambient (perhaps more credible) information in favor of your assertions? I hope my photos generally augment my assertions about myself...how about yours?</p>

<p>How can we respond to photographs without being personal? Isn't that "intrinsic" vs "extrinsic" trope a confused effort to deny the very relevance of the viewer?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>This is exactly a case in point. <br /></em><br />What point is that - that I was making an ad hominem argument against you, rather than talking about what you said? I was not. I don't know you and can't really talk about you, per se, in any useful way. But if I see, written before me, something that I consider to be a platitude meant to disarm others from commenting negatively on your thesis... well, I'll say so. It doesn't mean I'm correct in interpreting what you wrote, but neither is it ad hominem. Unless that's not the <em>case</em> in the "case in point" to which you refer. Perhaps I'm just far too obtuse for this forum. I won't consider it an ad hominem argument if you say that I am - because that <em>would</em> be an observation on your part, <em>about me</em>... rather than a deflection away from some other topic of debate.<br /><br />As I distill it, your point is: PN would be a better place if people didn't get off topic. Rather than debate that point as stated, I'd say that the real issue is how one defines "off topic," and how best to respond to it. It's the internet. Don't feed the trolls. Don't dignify destructively off-topic remarks with a response. And certainly don't make too much of a bit of ribbing over what - honestly - comes across as hand wringing over something of <em>very</em> fleeting import. Though many - from Sayre to Moynihan to Kissenger - have been credited with adding sauce to this sentiment, Woodrow Wilson is likely the father of this observation: <em>The intensity of academic-minded squabbles is a direct function of the triviality of the matter at hand</em>. That certainly covers many of PNs most heated discussions.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"<em>The intensity of academic-minded squabbles is a direct function of the triviality of the matter at hand</em> . That certainly covers many of PNs most heated discussions."</p>

<p>No it doesn't.</p>

<p>Hope you're all Monty Python fans. Wait .... is that off topic?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Having gone through that thread, I see nothing even remotely resembling an ad hominem attack. I see a lot of strong interchange over ideas, but that's it. I see nothing in the Sartre comment different than what is in many discussions of people and their ideas. It's similar to a comment like "Warhol's art is the work of a con man," which has been said here without anyone getting bothered by it. I happen to agree with the comment about Warhol and think it's what makes his work great and relevant. It wouldn't have happened without that aspect to it and in a critical discussion, is a relevant point. I can't say I know enough about Sartre to say that he was a narcissist or that, if he was a narcissist, it influenced his work. But it seems to me that it is quite relevant in terms of critical analysis.<br>

<br /> Many threads on the internet wander from topic to topic, especially with ideas. This is the way ideas flow, and the way discussions around them flow. It's not just the internet, it's the way it can happen in a classroom, in a face to face discussion group, almost anywhere. If discussion gets stuck in digression, maybe it deserves a new location, or if it goes way off topic, like if it had turned into a discussion of equipment or mixing chemicals, then something should be done. But it doesn't seem to have stayed off topic that long.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff--</p>

<p>Thanks for your answer. I see it as a difference between wandering from topic to topic and being consistently led into oblivion. We disagree. It's good that we do, which is why I said it's up to those of us who find certain behaviors and ways of writing objectionable and unproductive to figure out ways of self regulating and staying productive. It will not and should not be done by moderators.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Being "consistently led into oblivion" demonstrates absence of a path.</p>

<p>In the recent case, everybody but the original poster recognized that "intrinsic" was used mistakenly and unfortunately centrally in what would otherwise have been a simple discussion about relative impact of various influences on responses to photos. "Intrinsic" is one of the few words in which shades of meaning are by definition "intrinsically" lacking.</p>

<p>"Those of us," "objectionable," and "unproductive" sound like they came from a pulpit in 1954.</p>

<p>Thundering "will not and should not" after the Moderator has already stated that he'll make up his own mind, thank you, tells a significant tale.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It will not and should not be done by moderators.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to be clear, the moderators serve two primary functions, at least in my mind, since it isn't codified anywhere:</p>

<p>1) We keep truly problematic stuff out. This includes personal attacks, posts that violate photo.net Terms of Service, especially posting images that are not one's own, spam, hate speech, etc., etc.</p>

<p>2) We make it so that posts are useful, informative, and well-organized. This means moving posts that are in the wrong forum, keeping things moderately on-track, for example, if a post on this forum becomes a camera discussion, it will be modified, and cleaning up posts that mess up pages. (The last has been a lot less of an issue since the introduction of the editor.)</p>

<p>Since there are no strict moderation rules, some moderators are more "activist" than others, but lately, this forum has required very little work, other than, as I mentioned above, moving out posts that have nothing to do with "philosophy" no matter how it is defined. But neither Mike nor I tries to steer the conversations here except when there is a problem as cited above.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John, <em>ad hairinem</em> flattery will get you nowhere.<br /><br />I'm something of a throwback, though, to be sure. In the IT industry (where I wander), the long hair can be a badge of office. You know, "Gee, if he can meet customers with hair like that, he must really know what he's doing!" <br /><br />I'm thinking of selling it to a wigmaker in order to buy a new camera body, though. I can't grow a higher resolution sensor, but I can grow more hair. OK, so that won't work.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Man, I guess you guys missed all of the deeply personal attacks that happened around photo.net years ago. For a year or so, if you even mentioned "Polaroid Camera" there would quickly ensue so much horse poop that it took just about every moderator around here to shovel it out. The really beautiful thing about free forums is also their worst point... they are open to anyone who has an opinion. I've often wondered if computers came with one of those breathalizers that DUI drivers have to use to start their cars, how much of the idiocy of the internet could be avoided. Oh well, that's the great thing about life isn't it? At least no-one got their nose broken.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, Jeff, John, and Matt:</p>

<p>I truly appreciate the comments you made above. In large measure they have helped me to sort some things out. Admittedly, my reference to Sartre got this whole thing off wrong, and it's not that I took that personally. (John, you and I have communicated about that already.) I am grateful for these forums. Aside just from being interesting, they help me learn. I have learned considerably from this experience.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In response to Fred's: "<br>

Matt, if you read through these Philosophy threads carefully, you'll note a distinct pattern of how and when they devolve and when most participants seem to drop out or when the anger takes over the productivity.<br>

It's a shame.<br>

And it's unfair to the rest of us."</p>

<p>John Kelly wrote:<br>

"Fred G's recurring notion that it's "unfair" (see above) and "off rails" to propose ideas that are new to him is disappointing."</p>

<p>What "ideas" did you propose -- and how do you know they are "new" to Fred? On what evidence do you base your claim that Fred often ("recurring notion") calls "ideas that are new to him", "unfair"?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Michael;</p>

<p>Ironically, Kripke's criticizm of Rule Following argument set by Wittgenstein seems to me a one more to the person than his thought, wherein K believes that W has meant different to what he has said, PI. No wonder that, for this, since, K is called (ironically?) Saul Wittgenstein. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...